Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:29:51 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Another Performance Regression in write() syscall |
| |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Dave Hansen wrote: > > Yeah, that's a good point. Are we sure that's what is happening here, > though? That's one thing a profile would hopefully help with.
One thing to note is that _if_ it's purely an issue of nontemporal stores vs normal stores, then profiling is very likely going to be almost entirely useless. You'll get "results", but the results have nothing what-so-ever to do with reality or anything interesting.
The nontemporal stores may stand out in the profiles, but the actual performance impact will be all about whether totally unrelated code got cache misses or not. Quite often those cache misses will also be in user mode, and very possibly in other processes.
So profiles can certainly be interesting, but if Salman says that his patch makes a difference for his benchmark, then profiling is almost certainly not interesting FOR THAT PATCH. It's interesting mainly as a way to look at whether there are then also _other_ issues that are worth addressing (ie the whole atime thing is in a whole different dimension and an independent issue).
Linus
| |